The European Union’s Framework Program 7 (with an emphasis on ICT) ppt

The European Union’s
Framework Program 7
(with an emphasis on ICT)
Version 2.13
Myer W Morron
EFPC (UK) Ltd
(www.EFPCGroup.com)
21 Oct 2012
The latest version of this document is available –
In pdf format at />The document is downloadable without charge but redistribution is restricted - see copyright on Page 14
The European Union’s Framework Program 7 (with an emphasis on ICT)
Version 2.13
Comments to
The method of distribution for this book has changed from previous EFPC
books. It is only held on the EFPC and Finance Help-desk web sites and
only registered users can download. It continues to be free. But as noted
under the copyright notice at the bottom of Page 14, redistribution is not
permitted without written permission from EFPC.
The reason for this is the dynamic nature of the content. The new method
allows us to notify those that down-load of new drafts and versions and of
any important changes.
In the past we noted that old versions were being held on-line in many sites
and this can lead to unfortunate mistakes and errors among users.

Specific changes –
2.13 Have made changes related to changes in FET Open in ICT Call 10 and 11.
EPSS incorporation into Participants Portal and typos have been addressed
2.12 Brought in line with Guide to Financial Issues relating to FP7 Indirect Actions dated 16 Jan 2012
in particular with respect to correct splitting of Project Management into Consortium Management
and Scientific Management - see new section 16.15
Updated and extended section 13 with example of being outside Euro-zone and main barriers

SMEs face.
Updated section 21 on Horizon2020 with latest information
Updates to reflect DG INFSO becoming DG CONNECT
Updated EPSS with SEP information - section 16.16
2.11 Typo on page 210
Have updated the chapter 21 on Horizon 2020 with the latest documentation on the Commission
proposal for this follow-on to FP7
Have updated Marie Curie and ERC chapters
Have modified Section 6 slightly to reflect changes in new version of Guide to Financial Issues of
16 Jan 2012
Have updated words on Evaluation Hearings
Have updated various places with respect to number of pages in a proposal
Have added 6.24.2 based on the updated NEF facility.
Have updated wrt project meetings and kick off meetings under project management
Version 2.13 Published 21 Oct 2012
ISBN # 965-90526-2-6
©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 2 of 285
The European Union’s Framework Program 7 (with an emphasis on ICT)
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Table of Contents 3
Author Brief CV 14
1 Overview 15
1.1 Background 15
1.1.1 The Framework Program 15
1.1.2 Reasons for Framework Program 15
1.1.3 The Nature of the Framework Program 16
1.2 Background to changes in FP7 17
1.3.1 Member State 17
1.3.2 Associated Countries 18

1.3.3 Other Countries 18
1.4 Overview of rules of participation 18
1.4.1 The Workprogram 18
1.4.2 Calls for proposal 19
1.4.3 Nature of proposals 19
1.4.4 Nature of Consortia 19
1.4.5 A quick look at the funding rules 19
1.4.6 Advance payments 19
1.4.7 Who can participate? 20
1.5 Benefits of participation in a Collaborative R&D project 20
1.5.1 Development of advanced technology 20
1.5.2 Access to advanced technology 20
1.5.3 Collaboration with key players 20
1.5.4 Collaboration with key customers 20
1.5.5 Facilitating investment in your company 21
1.5.6 Access to a new market 21
1.5.7 Access to a new geographic area 21
1.5.8 Development of an international standard 21
1.5.9 Marketing and/or technological intelligence 21
1.5.10 Funding for something you were planning to do 21
1.5.11 Training or retraining for own staff 21
1.5.12 Exposure of staff to new areas of technology 22
1.5.13 Increasing number of trained staff 22
1.5.14 Ability to hold staff during commercial downturns 22
1.5.15 Danger of not being in 22
1.5.16 Sabotage! 22
1.6 Reasons not to participate 22
1.6.1 Work is not a natural fit into the Workprogram 22
1.6.2 Time-table does not fit 22
1.6.3 Time to market is unsuitable 22

1.6.4 Project is too secret 22
2 Brief Overview of Framework Program Seven and CIP 24
2.1 Framework Program 7 highlights 24
2.1.1 Cooperation 24
2.1.2 Ideas 25
2.1.3 People 25
2.1.4 Capacities 25
2.2 CIP Program 28
©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 3 of 285
The European Union’s Framework Program 7 (with an emphasis on ICT)
2.2.1 Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme 29
2.2.2 ICT Policy Support Programme 30
2.2.3 Intelligent Energy-Europe Program 30
2.3 FP7 Funding Schemes (Types of Projects) 30
2.3.1 Collaborative projects (CP) 31
2.3.2 Networks of Excellence (NoE) 32
2.3.3 (CSA) 34
2.3.4 Collaborative Projects and Coordination and Support Actions (CP-CSA) 35
2.3.5 ERA-NET and ERA-NET Plus 35
3 Framework Program Seven changes 37
3.1 Changes in Terminology 37
3.2 Project Management changes 37
3.4 Rules of Participation 38
3.5 Contractual changes 38
3.5.1 Collective responsibility of the participants 39
3.5.2 Agreement coming into force 39
3.5.3 Cost models have been eliminated 39
3.5.4 Intellectual property rights 39
3.5.5 Coordinators or partners with more than 500,000 allocated 40
3.6 Financial Changes 40

3.7 Proposal changes 41
3.8 Evaluation changes 41
3.8.1 Scientific and Technical Quality: 41
3.8.2 Implementation: 41
3.8.3 Impact: 42
3.9 Recourse 42
3.10 Impact Summary 42
4 Formal process 44
4.1 Workprogram 44
4.2.1 R&D Proposals Suitable for FP7 45
4.2.2 R&D Proposals Unsuitable for FP7 45
4.3 Calls for Proposals 45
4.4 Partner Search 45
4.4.1 To coordinate or not 46
4.4.2 Type A 47
4.4.3 Type B 48
4.4.4 Due Diligence 49
4.4.5 Memorandum of Understanding 49
4.5 Idealist Partner Search Quality Team processing 50
4.5.1 Quality Team Scoring System 51
4.6 Proposal preparation and submittal 52
4.6.1 Part A - The Forms 53
4.6.2 Part B - The Proposal 53
4.6.3 Evaluation Criteria 54
4.6.4 Notification of Intention to Submit 55
4.6.5 On-line preparation and submission using EPSS 55
4.7 Proposal Time-line 55
4.8 Collaborative R&D Proposal evaluation 55
4.8.1 Hearings 57
4.9 What to do if your Proposal Fails 58

4.9.1 Check the ESR carefully 58
4.9.2 Get further information 58
4.9.3 Use of the Program Committee - “Lobbying” 59
©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 4 of 285
The European Union’s Framework Program 7 (with an emphasis on ICT)
4.9.4 Resubmit where possible 59
4.9.5 Request for Redress 59
5 Types of Project, Roles & Structure 61
5.1 Refined Instrument Definitions 61
5.1.1 STREP versus IP 62
5.1.2 NoE 62
5.1.3 CA versus SA 62
5.1.4 Security Program Project Types 63
5.2 ICT STREPs 63
5.2.1 Typical Structure of Small or medium-scale focused research actions 65
5.3 ICT IPs 66
5.3.1 Structure of IPs 68
5.3.2 Potential Scope of an ICT IP 69
5.4 Network of Excellence 70
5.4.1 NoE Practical Points 73
5.4.2 Structure of NoEs 74
5.5 (CSA) 74
5.5.1 Coordination or networking actions (CA) 74
5.5.2 Support actions (SA) 74
5.6 SME Special Measures 75
5.6.1 Research for SMEs (In Previous FPs, called Co-operative Research - CRAFT) 76
5.6.2 Research for (Formerly known as Collective Research) 78
5.7 ICT FET Open Scheme 82
5.7.1 FET One step and two step proposals 82
5.8 Project Roles 83

5.8.1 Beneficiary 83
5.8.2 Coordinator 83
5.8.3 Sub-contractor 83
5.8.4 Project Manager 83
5.9 Two Stage Submission 84
5.10 Research Infrastructures I3 Instrument 84
6 Financial Aspects 85
6.1 Cost Calculation 85
6.1.1 Interpretation of R&D funding rates for non-profit bodies 88
6.1.2 Definition of Research Organisation 88
6.1.3 Use of Lump Sums by ICPC Beneficiaries 88
6.2 Allowable Consortium Management Costs at 100% 89
6.3 Explanation of activity costs 90
6.3.1 Research Costs 90
6.3.2 Demonstration Costs 90
6.3.3 Other Costs 90
6.3.4 Eligible Costs 91
6.4 Personnel costs 91
6.4.1 Personnel Definitions 92
6.4.2 Personnel Status 92
6.4.3 Overtime 93
6.5 Overhead (or Indirect) Cost Calculation 93
6.5.1 Different Overhead Methods or ICM: 93
6.5.2 Actual 94
6.5.3 Simplified method for calculation of 95
6.5.4 Standard Flat rates for where applicable 95
6.5.5 Special Transition flat rate 96
6.5.6 Mixed systems 96
©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 5 of 285
The European Union’s Framework Program 7 (with an emphasis on ICT)

6.5.7 Applicability of Overheads 96
6.5.8 Important Overhead Notes: 97
6.5.9 Example of third party costs eligible for project and conditions for acceptability 97
6.5.10 Overheads on “Consortium Management or Other Costs” 98
6.5.11 Special case of CSA 98
6.6 Equipment costs 98
6.7 Non-eligible costs 99
6.8 Costing of Network of Excellence 99
6.9 Creating a Participant’s Budget 100
6.9.1 Items common to all costing methods 100
6.9.2 The fixed overhead participant 100
6.9.3 The calculated overhead participant 101
6.9.4 Note on NoE budgeting 101
6.10 of the Project 101
6.11 Claiming costs in a running project 101
6.11.1 Dealing with Exchange Rates in Financial Statements 101
6.12 Audit Certificates or Certificates on Financial Statements 102
6.12.1 Certification 103
6.13 Accounting Principles 104
6.14 Example of different bases of cost calculation 105
6.15 Participation without funding 106
6.16 Pre-financing Interest 106
6.17 Sub-contracts 106
6.18 Internal or intra participant cross purchasing 107
6.19 Financial Guarantee Fund 107
6.20 Reporting 108
6.21 FP7 Rule Clarification 108
6.22 Research for SMEs, Research for 109
6.23 The People Program - Marie Curie 109
6.24 Participants Portal 109

6.24.1 FORCE 109
6.24.2 NEF Update of Feb 2012 110
6.25 Financial differences under the CIP 112
6.25.1 CIP: Participation 112
6.25.2 CIP: IEE compared to FP7 financial rules 112
6.25.3 CIP: ICT-PSP compared to FP7 financial rules 113
6.26 Simplification of FP7 Rules 115
6.26.1 Why is simplifying research funding important? 115
6.26.2 How did the rules get so complicated in the first place? 115
6.26.3 What are the main changes being made now? 115
6.26.4 How does the reimbursement of personnel costs work? 116
6.26.5 How much money will these changes save? 116
6.26.6 How much time will these measures save ? 116
6.26.7 Will existing projects be affected by the changes, or only new ones? 116
6.26.8 Why has it taken since April to bring these changes forward? 116
6.26.9 How will the Commission ensure these changes do not lead to reduced financial control? 116
6.26.10 Do these changes fully reflect the recommendations of the Mid-Term Evaluation? 117
6.26.11 What progress has been made towards simplification so far? 117
6.26.12 Will there be more changes before the end of FP7? 117
6.26.13 What kind of changes can we expect under the next research program? 117
6.26.14 Why not make some of these changes now? 118
6.26.15 What is Tolerable Risk of Error? 118
6.26.16 What is the state of play in the discussions over the Tolerable Risk of Error (TRE)? 118
©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 6 of 285
The European Union’s Framework Program 7 (with an emphasis on ICT)
6.26.17 Which departments and agencies of the Commission are directly involved in running FP7? 118
6.26.18 How will setting up a new committee of DGs simplify things or achieve consistency? 119
6.26.19 When will this new committee start work and when do you expect it to deliver results? 119
6.26.20 How close are we to the 15% target for SME participation in the FP? 119
7 Use of External Consultants 120

7.1 How to select a consultant 120
7.2 What their role should be 120
7.3 Payment methods 121
7.3.1 Up front agreed sum for specific work 121
7.3.2 Agreed sum plus success fee incentive 121
7.3.3 Pure success fee incentive 121
7.3.4 Project participation 121
7.3.5 Problems with Success Fees 121
7.4 Points to watch 122
7.4.1 Fixed or calculated overhead rate 122
7.4.2 Rights to the Output 122
7.4.3 Last minute pressure 122
7.4.4 Consultants signing up your partners 122
7.4.5 Consultants adding you into a consortium where they are already being paid by 122
7.4.6 Ensuring you agree with proposal 122
7.4.7 Use of 123
7.4.8 Ensure access to all information 123
7.4.9 Pressuring you to be 123
7.4.10 Taking role of Coordinator 123
7.5 Quali4EU 124
7.6 Summary 124
8 What to do when your proposal is to be funded 125
8.1 Contract Negotiation 125
8.1.1 Validation of existence and legal status of participating legal entities 125
8.1.2 Collective responsibility 127
8.1.3 General - Handling of s 127
8.1.4 Financial Viability and Capability of the 128
8.1.5 Negotiation on Annex 1 128
8.1.6 Funding Distribution between partners 128
8.2 Consortium Agreement 128

8.2.1 Consortium Check-list - Outline of Contents 129
8.2.2 Dealing with serious errors made by Coordinator 130
8.3 Project Initiation 131
8.4 Cash flow during a typical project 131
8.5 Problems during the project 132
8.5.1 Partner problems 132
8.5.2 Technical problems 133
8.5.3 Market problems 133
8.5.4 Problems with the Commission 133
8.5.5 Contract changes 134
8.6 Project end 134
8.7 Potential audits 135
8.8 Grant Agreement amendment 135
9 Project Management 136
9.1 Introduction to Project Management 136
9.2 Kick off Meeting 137
9.3 Essential Documents 137
9.3.1 Project grant agreement with annexes 137
©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 7 of 285
The European Union’s Framework Program 7 (with an emphasis on ICT)
9.3.2 Project Handbook 138
9.3.3 Progress tracking 138
9.4 Project reporting guidelines 138
9.4.1 FP7 Interim reporting requirements: 138
9.4.2 FP7 Final reporting requirements: 139
9.5 Project Reviews 139
9.5.1 Introduction 139
9.5.2 Mandate of the Independent Expert(s) 139
9.5.3 Outline of the review process 140
9.5.4 Review material 140

9.5.5 Reporting 140
9.5.6 Reporting Portal 140
9.5.7 Project Assessment of the Commission 140
9.5.8 Template for the Technical Review Report 140
9.5.9 Some notes on the process 141
9.6 Dealing with Crises 141
9.7 Completing the Project/Final Review 141
10 Project Good Practice 142
10.1 Introduction 142
10,2 Why behave properly? 142
10.3 The Role of the Coordinator 142
10.4 Actions at different stages 142
10.4.1 Building a consortium 142
10.4.2 Submitting the proposal 143
10.4.3 Evaluation 143
10.4.4 Contract negotiations 143
10.4.5 Consortium Agreement 144
10.4.6 During the project 144
10.4.7 Project End 144
10.4.8 Sabotage 144
10.5 Unacceptable bias 144
10.6 Summary 144
11 European Technology Platforms 145
11.1 Official view 145
11.2 Interfaces between ICT Platforms 146
11.3 Joint Technology Initiatives 147
11.4 Relationship with Eureka 147
11.4.1 Eurostars 147
11.5 How ETP activities are funded 148
11.5.1 Via Framework funding 148

11.5.2 Joint Technology Initiative 148
11.6 JTI/ETP Structures 149
11.7 Financial Details 150
11.7.1 Funding Aspects 150
11.7.2 Participant funding in JTI project 150
11.7.3 JTI Call, Evaluation and Contract Process 151
11.7.4 ICL JTI Call for proposals 152
11.8 Initial Membership, Funding and Hosting 153
11.8.1 Clean Sky Joint Undertaking 153
11.8.2 Innovative Medicines Joint Undertaking 153
11.8.3 ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking in Embedded Computing Systems 154
11.8.4 ENIAC Joint Undertaking 154
11.8.5 Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking 154
©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 8 of 285
The European Union’s Framework Program 7 (with an emphasis on ICT)
11.8.6 Ambient Assisted Living Joint Undertaking 155
12 Ethical Considerations in FP7 156
12.1 Ethical Issues at the Proposal Stage 157
12.2 Typical ICT Ethical Issues 158
12.3 Sensitive Ethical Issues 158
12.4 Request for Ethical Review 158
12.5 Ethical Review 158
12.6 Ethical Review Workings 159
12.7 Contract negotiation and the Ethical Review report 160
12.8 Ethical management 160
12.9 Ethics during the Project 160
12.10 Special Clauses related to Ethics 160
12.10.1 Ethical Rules 161
12.10.2 Research involving the use of human embryos and embryonic stem cells 161
12.10.3 Ethical Review 161

12.10.4 Clinical Research (specific to for biomedical research involving human beings): 161
13 Status 163
13.4.1 Types of SMEs 163
13.4.2 Funding rules for SMEs 164
13.4.3 Opportunities for High Tech SMEs 164
13.4.4 Opportunities for Low Tech SMEs 164
13.4.5 Financial viability issues 164
13.4.6 Domination by large companies 165
13.4.7 Implication of non-monolithic IPs 165
13.5 Verification of status 165
13.6 Definition 165
13.7 Coordinators 165
13.8 Barriers to Participation in FP7 165
13.8.1 Complexity of the rules 166
13.8.2 Time to payment 166
13.8.3 The currency problem 166
13.8.4 Built in bias against small companies 166
13.8.5 Mistaken Commission reliance on SMEs being able to enforce legal contracts 167
13.8.6 Inexperience of most auditors 167
13.9 Example of company outside Euro-zone 167
13.10 Research for SMEs, Research for 168
14 Intellectual Property Aspects 169
14.1 Comparison between provisions under FP6 and FP7 Main changes 169
14.2 SME projects 175
14.3 Joint Research Units (JRUs) 175
14.4 The common legal structure 175
15 How to write a proposal 176
15.1 Agreement of project abstract, objective and scope 179
15.2 Preliminary commitment of participants 180
15.2.1 Non Disclosure Agreement 180

15.3 Agreement on participant order 181
15.4 Set up of Part B Template 181
15.5 Agreement on document standards and method of working 181
15.6 Agreement on Work package structure and contributing partners 182
15.6.1 Assessment and Evaluation 182
15.7 Production of preliminary Pert and Gantt 183
15.8 Agreement on WP leaders and WP descriptions 183
15.9 Set up of Project Effort form (Guide for Applicants) & costing spread sheet 183
©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 9 of 285
The European Union’s Framework Program 7 (with an emphasis on ICT)
15.10 Production of B1.1 Concept and Objectives 183
15.11 Production of B1.2 Progress beyond the state of the art 184
15.12 Production of B2.1, B2,2, B2.3, B3.1, B3.2 and B4 (can proceed in parallel) 184
15.12.1 B2.1 Management structure and procedures 184
15.12.2 B2.2 Individual participants 185
15.12.3 B2.3 Consortium as a whole 185
15.12.4 B3.1 Expected impacts listed in the work program 186
15.12.5 B3.2 Dissemination and/or Exploitation of project results and management of 186
15.12.6 B4 Ethical issues 186
15.12.7 B5 Gender and other issues 187
15.13 Initial text for WP descriptions, deliverables & initial manpower 187
15.14 Production of B1.3 work plan 187
15.15 Initial guestimates of other costs per WP per partner 188
15.16 Iterations on costing spread sheet to achieve acceptable cost distribution 188
15.17 Updating of all tables with man months, deliverables and milestones 188
15.18 Addition to B2.4 Resources to be committed 188
15.19 Updating of A3.1 forms, fine tuning, proofing, agreement by partners 189
15.20 Number of pages in a Proposal 189
15.21 Red teaming of proposal i.e. external dummy evaluation 189
16 Practical Advice - 2012 collaborative research calls 191

16.1 Gathering of partner information 191
16.2 Setting up EPSS/SEP A Forms 191
16.3 Entering the initial information 191
16.4 Setting up the budget spread sheet 192
16.5 Entering initial cost data for each partner 192
16.6 Finalising the budget 193
16.7 Finalising the proposal 193
16.8 Additional EPSS specific Issues 193
16.9 ICT Calls miscellaneous notes 193
16.9.1 Management activities 194
16.9.2 The transitional overhead rate & SMEs 194
16.10 Result of the first five years Call Evaluations 195
16.11 State of Play 2012 Calls 195
16.12 FP7 Contract negotiations 197
16.13 Project Officers 197
16.14 Deliverable Month 198
16.15 Management Meetings not Management? 198
16.16 SEP 198
17 People Program (Marie Curie) 200
17.1 Program Overview 200
17.2 Early-stage researchers (ESR): 201
17.3 Experienced researchers (ER): 201
17.4 Which Actions to use 201
17.4.1 Fellowships 201
17.4.2 Integration Grants 202
17.4.3 Host Actions 202
17.5 Concept of Panels 203
17.6 Financial Considerations 204
17.7 Eligibility of Tuition Fees in Marie Curie Action Cost Statements in FP7 206
17.8 Transnational Mobility Requirements for all actions 207

17.9 Important Documents 207
17.10 Eligible Organisations 207
17.11 Marie Curie in Horizon 2020 207
©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 10 of 285
The European Union’s Framework Program 7 (with an emphasis on ICT)
18 European Research Council (ERC) Projects 208
18.1 ERC Starting Grants 209
18.2 ERC Advanced Grants 210
18.3 Proof of Concept 211
18.4 ERC Synergy Grants 212
18.5 ERC in Horizon 2020 212
19 Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) 213
20 PCP (Pre-Commercial Procurement) 214
21 Horizon 2020 (Status of initial moves to FP8) 216
21.1 Horizon 2020 brings together all EU research and innovation funding 216
21.2 Horizon 2020 - new program architecture 216
21.3 Cutting red tape 217
21.4 Strengthening innovation 217
21.5 Reversing the brain drain 217
21.6 Closing the research and innovation divide in Europe 218
21.7 Developing industrial leadership and competitiveness, including for SMEs 218
21.8 Information and Communications Technologies in Horizon 2020 219
21.9 ICT in Science 219
21.10 ICT in industrial leadership 219
21.11 ICT in societal challenges 219
21.12 Socio-economic sciences and humanities in Horizon 2020 220
21.13 The European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) 220
21.14 The European Research Council 220
21.15 The Joint Research Centre 221
21.16 More public-private and public-public partnerships 221

21.17 Promoting gender equality and the gender dimension in research and innovation 221
21.18 Promoting responsible research and innovation in Horizon 2020 221
21.19 The existing research funding architecture 222
21.20 Funding rules in Horizon 2020 222
21.21 Marie Curie and Horizon 2020 222
21.22 ERC and Horizon 2020 223
21.23 Some detailed differences with FP7 223
Appendix 1 European Union 224
A1.1 States Participating in the Framework Program 224
A1.1.1 Member States 224
A1.1.2 Associated Countries 224
A1.1.3 International Cooperation Partner Countries (ICPC) 226
A1.2 Organisation of the European Union Institutions 226
A1.2.1 European Parliament 226
A1.2.2 Council of the European Union 227
A1.2.3 European Commission 227
A1.2.4 ERC Executive Agency 229
A1.2.5 Research Executive Agency 230
A1.2.6 Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation 232
A1.2.7 European Institute of Innovation and Technology 233
Appendix 2 Glossary 234
Appendix 3 Measuring Value of Participation 262
A3.1 Cash Flow Measure 262
A3.2 Value Metric 262
A3.2.1 Pre-benefits 262
A3.2.2 Participation benefits 263
Appendix 4 Useful Information Sources 264
Appendix 5 Project Budgeting Spread Sheet 269
©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 11 of 285
The European Union’s Framework Program 7 (with an emphasis on ICT)

A5.1 Modification for real use 269
A5.2 Need for spread-sheet 269
A5.3 High level description of the spread sheet template 269
A5.3.1 Project summary sheet 270
A5.3.2 Partner sheet 271
A5.3.3 Manpower sheet 271
A5.4 Spread Sheet set-up for a specific proposal 272
A5.5 Example Set-up 273
A5.5.1 Project sheet with Data inserted 275
A5.5.2 Partner 1 sheet with Data inserted 276
A5.5.3 Manpower sheet with Data inserted 276
Appendix 6 Examples of Blah Blah 277
Appendix 7 Brussels-English 279
Key Topic Index 280
©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 12 of 285
The European Union’s Framework Program 7 (with an emphasis on ICT)
Preface to Version 2
In this Version 2, we reoriented the book to cover considerably more than the original ICT Program. This has been
a gradual process by broadening the coverage of the collaborative research as well as adding content dealing with
the People Program, the Ideas Program as well as the SME Measures. We have also added some material on the
CIP program.
This book follows on from two previous books I produced dealing with IST in Framework Program Five and
Framework Program Six. Although it is based on them, there are many significant differences. As before, this is
being modified incrementally, in parallel with Framework Program Seven practice. FP7 has significant differences
from both FP6 and FP5 and thus readers of this book must bear in mind that the information is purely an
interpretation of documents, laced with experience.
Why did I write it? – Is there insufficient material by the Commission? In presentations I usually say that the
problem is there is too much official information scattered across many documents. Thus, this book tries to
combine the essence in a single place. I also often say that the Commission documentation describes the legal
framework, not how to participate. It is akin to expecting that reading the Highway Code will teach you how to

drive a car. This is a complementary document that should be seen as a practical guide to the program.
The book is a practitioner's manual aimed at Senior Management staff in organisations wishing a broader
background on the European Union's Seventh Framework R&D as well as at consultants to those organisations.
However the initial chapters one, two and three can stand alone and give an overview suitable as an introductory
text. It is primarily aimed at Commercial organisations, but three quarters of the content also applies to Academic
Institutions and other non-commercial potential participants. With respect to technical coverage, it is focused on the
Cooperation part of FP7 with some emphasis on the ICT Program. However, the majority of the content applies to
all the other Themes. But there are differences. I have tried to highlight major divergences in the text.
Bear in mind that the program content and the rules are under continual revision and reinterpretation. The rules for
FP7 are continually being interpreted. This book gives my current understanding of the state of play after four plus
years of FP7. I shall continue to release further updates as new information becomes available. As in the past we
have noted significant differences in how the common rules are interpreted by different CEC Directorate Generals
and even within each. Ensure that all specific information is double checked with the current official
documentation before being acted on. I have added chapter 21 that deals with the status of the FP7 successor
program Horizon 2020. As information/plans are released I will update this chapter. Eventually I plan a completely
new book
Finally, I would like to thank Dana Remes, Graham Feldman and Michael Remes for their contributions, helpful
comments and corrections and my wife Shoshana for her patience and understanding.
21 October 2012
Glasgow, Scotland
Disclaimer
The contents are based on the author's own experiences, views and knowledge and not those of any organisation he
may have or may be associated with. The information contained has been checked by him. However neither the
author nor any organisation assume any responsibility or liability for incorrect information herein. Any use of this
information is at user's own risk.
©Copyright notice
It is not permitted to translate, reproduce or redistribute the whole or parts in hard copy or electronically without
written permission. Short quotations are permitted as long as acknowledgement is given to the author and the web
address is quoted for future updates. />Direct links to above web address for copies is encouraged.
Publisher and Author: Myer W Morron ()

FP Program Series
The European Union’s Framework Program 7 (with an emphasis on ICT),
Version 2.13
ISBN # 965-90526-2-6
©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 13 of 285
The European Union’s Framework Program 7 (with an emphasis on ICT)
Author Brief CV
Mr Morron is a graduate of the University of Glasgow where he studied Pure Science as well as
Computer Science from 1960 - 1965. He has a broad technical background but specialised in software
engineering, especially operating systems and supercomputer architectures. He has worked in these fields
in the US, UK and Israel.
Currently he is CEO of EFPC (UK) Ltd. which is currently participating in several EU funded projects in
the ICT and Security Programs. Myer is also CEO of EFPC Ltd an Israeli company set up in 2002 to
combine both Financial and Technical/Administrative as well as training support for organisations
interested in participating in the Framework Program. This company has itself participates in several
different EU funded projects and in particular runs the Finance Helpdesk for FP7. (www.finance-
helpdesk.org).
Until October 2004 Myer was IST Director at ISERD, the Israeli body responsible for managing the
Association Agreement with the EU on behalf of the Israeli government. He represented the State of
Israel on the IST Management Committee for the duration of FP5 and continued this role in FP6. He also
represented the State of Israel on the Research Infrastructures Committee. As part of his job he
coordinated all Israeli activity in the IST and RI parts of the Framework Program including the NCP
activity in those areas. He was part of the team that negotiated the FP5 Association Agreement and then a
member of the EC-Israel Research Committee that oversaw the operation of that Agreement.
Mr. Morron held various Senior Technical and Management positions for Computer and
Telecommunications Manufacturers. The main companies he has worked for include Control Data (US
and Israel), ICL, STC and Nortel (UK) and Elbit (Israel).
During the past thirty years his work has concerned the development and successful market exploitation
of new and emerging technologies and standards with an emphasis on Open Standards and joint
collaborative projects. He has consulted and presented extensively in IT related issues, including for the

CEC, US DoD, UK MoD, NATO and Standards Bodies ECMA, ISO, CEN, NIST and ETSI.
Mr Morron has been involved with the EU framework research programs from their inception in 1984.
He has been personally involved in many key projects in the MAP, ESPRIT 1, 2 and 3, Telematics,
ACTS and IST programs. He has also been an evaluator and an external expert in ESPRIT, Telematics,
INCO Innovation, Research Infrastructures and IST programs on many occasions. He also acted as an
Evaluator/Rapporteur in FP7. Recently he has published papers related to barriers experienced by SMEs
in participating in the Framework Program and has provided input on this subject to various Commission
bodies, the European Parliament and recently as part of the Higher Level Advisory Group on the impact
on innovation of government R&D funding.
©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 14 of 285
The European Union’s Framework Program 7 (with an emphasis on ICT)
1 Overview
1.1 Background
1.1.1 The Framework Program
FP7 runs for seven years unlike all previous programs that ran for four years. The first programs started in
the early eighties and they were gradually combined into a single Framework Program, but initially they
were not known as “Framework Programs”. That term was only applied retroactively to the early
programs.
The ICT Theme is part of the European Union Framework Research and Development Program Seven. It
is a follow-on to the IST program of Framework Programs Five and Six that replaced the three programs
ACTS, ESPRIT and Telematics Applications Program (TAP) that were in the previous Framework
Program Four. Most, but not all of the technologies and application areas covered by the previous IST
program appear in some form in the revised ICT Program.
All the current FP7 R&D programs derive in some way from previous activities. ICT program mainly
derives from the ESPRIT Program that started in 1984. It encompassed various other activities in
Information Technology into a more or less integrated program. For example the Multi-Annual Program
“MAP” was a predecessor and it funded topics like software technology and included a broad Ada
Technology activity that developed into part of ESPRIT.
Later in the eighties, other programs appeared that were eventually combined into the Framework such as
RACE which became ACTS and covered telecommunication technologies. Various other programs in the

application domain such as Health IT, Transport IT (such as the DRIVE Program, Education and Training
etc. combined to form the Telematics Applications Program).
It is useful to remember these historical roots, as those communities and their practices still exist to some
extent in the ICT Program and tend to be semi-autonomous based on past practice. However, due to
interchange of staff and a concerted effort at transparency, differences are gradually disappearing.
Due to a French Initiative in the mid-late eighties another pan-European Program, originally seen as
complementing the Framework Program called EUREKA was formed. Its rules and conditions are
substantially different from Framework and rely on funding from the involved countries directly being
given to their own participants under country specific rules. EUREKA is a bottom up program compared
to Framework, which is definitely top down in structure and implementation. However under FP7 the
European Technology Platforms and Joint Technology Initiatives leverage this investment in both types of
programs.
1.1.2 Reasons for Framework Program
But why does the European Union fund R & D and what is the intention? In the early eighties it became
apparent that European high tech industry was under extreme threat from both Japan and the US.
At that time several key European industries such as computing, microelectronics and
telecommunications were seen to be in serious jeopardy. It was also believed in Europe that US
competitors benefited both from a large homogeneous home market as well as indirect subsidies from the
US government to its high tech industry, mainly as a spin off of defence funding. Together, this was
thought to give US players a major competitive advantage as compared to the fragmented European
industry. It was not seen to be any lack in innovation in Europe, but the inability to exploit it world-wide.
Many of the key innovations being directed at Europe from North America were seen to be based on
originally European innovations. There were other incidents that also raised worries in Europe such as
Intel and Motorola deciding to be more restrictive in the licensing of their microprocessor designs.
With respect to Japan, it was also thought that protective trade practices as well as co-ordination and
funding from MITI, allowed Japan to establish a dominant place in what was then seen as the brown
©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 15 of 285
The European Union’s Framework Program 7 (with an emphasis on ICT)
goods market.
All of the above resulted in several longer term threats to Europe that can be seen as falling under the

following categories –
● Commercial – it would result in an increasing imbalance in trade, especially in the high
technology, high added value industries. This could have long term disastrous effect on European
industry and standard of living via negative impact on exchange rates and inflation.
● Social – there would be a negative impact on employment, especially in the employment of
graduates, who in ever increasing numbers would be forced overseas – the so called “brain drain”.
● Security – the longer-term reliance of European military and security forces on imported
technology was of major concern. For example without a successful commercial modern silicon
fabrication facilities, sensitive components and systems would all have to be imported. A classic
example is military crypto chips.
In the early eighties, we could already see some effects that would only get worse with time. For example,
European computer manufacturers were becoming completely reliant on non-European sourcing of
memory chips. It was noticed with frustration that any time there was a specific chip shortage, US
suppliers tended to favour the US computer manufacturers, making European Computer manufacturers
situation even worse.
In addition there was concern in Brussels that there was no order in the various relatively minor research
funding going on in various fields. Thus a typical French multi annual funding plan was initiated firstly
with MAP (multi annual program) initiated in 1979 which in the early eighties funded some software
research including European support of the Ada language program. This grew into the ESPRIT program
initiated in 1984. The CEC support of the Ada market under MAP represented 50 percent of the total CEC
R&D budget for information technologies at the time. Through this program, some of the first European
compilers were developed and the foundations laid for the PCTE (The Portable Common Tool
Environment), which was a Programming Support Environment that included Ada. MAP also provided
funding for the establishment of an Ada Europe Association and for its technical working groups.
The CEC's policy with programs such as MAP and ESPRIT the European Strategic Programme for
Research & Development in Information Technology was to form a sound technical basis for future
competition with the rest of the world. CEC's promotion of Ada was its first major European
endorsement.
ESPRIT was in some-ways inspired by the new Japanese Fifth Generation Computer Program partially
inspired by European Logic programming (from Imperial College - but that is another story).

Of course, more recently additional reasons have been emphasised for the Framework Programs, such as:
1) Promotion of European Unity
2) Encouragement of Industry consolidation in Europe
3) Support for industrial and social policy i.e. political reasons
Such reasons are post hoc rationalisations and though desirable effects, were not the original reasons. The
last reason above has become much more pronounced in FP7 as it has increasingly become partially a
political program than a pure technological one.
1.1.3 The Nature of the Framework Program
The nature of the research programs is top down i.e., the specific technical areas to be funded are
predefined. Other topics would not be eligible for funding. The Commission states many times that the
goal of the framework is only to address about 5 - 10% of European Union industrial research – the rest is
funded by individual countries, agencies or companies. The only topics available for funding are those
covered by the “Workprogram” and which attempt to go beyond current state of the art and have a
©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 16 of 285
The European Union’s Framework Program 7 (with an emphasis on ICT)
believable exploitation plan. That is, the industrial results must be marketable with an expected market
size commensurate with the cost/investment.
Because projects are expected and required to extend the state of art, there has to be identifiable risk and
the Commission sees the funding as being an offset for this risk. This is an important point – a project that
cannot complete because of valid technical reasons should not be treated as a failure – it only
demonstrated that a particular approach is not practical at this point.
Another critical criterion for a valid project must be that it shows that there is significant added value or
likelihood of success by addressing the project at the European level. This is the so-called “subsidiarity”
criterion of the Maastricht agreement. This states that work better done at the local level should not be
carried out at the European level. This concept of “subsidiarity” is important to understand and to address.
A final critical criterion for the new types of project introduced in FP7 must be that there is a significant
strategic impact of the proposed work.
1.2 Background to changes in FP7
Between the Framework Programs Four and Five the Commission was forced to resign by the European
Parliament after some alleged scandal that involved, partly, research funding. In particular, a new

Research Commissioner was appointed and he implemented major changes in the program that were
initially introduced in Framework Program Six. At the same time a new Financial Regulation was
adopted. The overall changes were the largest since the initial Framework. Changes were not only made
to the legal instruments, but also to the contractual conditions. The funding rules were also significantly
different. In most respects these changes were intended to make participation less bureaucratic for
organisations. In practice the changes were not properly thought through or trialled. As a result, they
significantly increased problems. There were several unintended interactions between changes and at the
launch of FP6, neither potential participants nor the Commission staff had a common understanding.
During the first and second years of FP6 as some of the more obvious errors and mistakes were
recognised, changes were implemented. But they were largely cosmetic - the needed major corrections
were planned for FP7. Thus FP7 was intended to rationalise the rules and regulations and in particular to
correct some obvious anomalies of FP6 and reduce the bureaucracy. See Section 3 for an overview of the
changes. However it has become clear that in practice they replaced one set of problems and conflicts by
a different set.
In summary we see the financial effects of FP6 to FP7 affecting organisations as follows:
Organisation/Change Effect of FP7 changes FP6
Large industrial companies Better: Demo from 35 to 50% and Consortium
Management not limited to 7%
Was FC
SMEs Much better on paper: at least 75% of 160% i.e.
120% of costs and no financial guarantees and
Consortium Management not limited to 7%
Was FCF
Academics Overall much better: Permanent staff can charge,
however demonstration 50% instead of 100%
Special derogation in place during transition
Was AC
Consultancies As for SMEs but offset by CSA overhead
reduced from 20% to 7%
Was 20%

1.3 Which Countries fully participate in FP7?
1.3.1 Member State
The Member States of the European Union consists of Twenty Seven countries from the start of FP7. See
Appendix 1 for a detailed list.
©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 17 of 285
The European Union’s Framework Program 7 (with an emphasis on ICT)
1.3.2 Associated Countries
It was agreed in the eighties that European States that had not yet joined the then European Community
could participate in the Framework Program. In the Nineties, these so called European Economic Area
(EEA) states reduced as they gradually joined the EU. For Framework Programs Four, Five, Six and
Seven they consist of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. The EEA states have an Association Agreement
with the EU Framework Program.
An Associated Country, contributes financially to the Framework Program and consequently has all the
rights and obligations of a member State in respect of funding. They should be treated identically. There
is now only one minor difference in that their representatives do not have a formal vote at the Program
Management Committees. However as most decisions are made by consensus, this has no practical effect.
A previous restriction with respect to meeting the minimum number of participants has now been
removed.
Israel became an Associated Country on 1 Jan 1996 i.e. second year of FP4 and continued throughout
FP5, FP6 and now FP7. Israel is the only non-European Associated State. In Jan 2004, Switzerland
concluded an Association Agreement and their status became similar to that of Israel. In FP7 several
Balkan Countries and Turkey also became Associated. Appendix 1 gives a comprehensive list of the
current Associated Countries.
1.3.3 Other Countries
Some other non-European countries have Science and Technology Agreements with the EU, but they only
participate on a “project by project” basis. Funding for many third countries is also be available via the so
called funding (previously referred to as INCO).
Specific International Cooperation Actions (SICAs) are used for partnerships with countries in areas of
mutual interest and cooperation on topics selected on the basis of their scientific and technological
competences and needs. Political dialogues with third countries and regions as well as international

support projects have allowed the identification of potential cooperation priorities that are of mutual
interest and benefit. The SICAs will have specific rules for participation and specific evaluation criteria.
1.4 Overview of rules of participation
1.4.1 The Workprogram
As previously mentioned, FP7 is generally top down. By this is meant that there are various
Workprograms that are generally revised annually. Each Workprogram is generated by the Directorate
General responsible for it. Most are under the control of DG Research but some are not. One such is the
ICT program which is under the direction of DG CONNECT based on input from various ad hoc
committees such as the relevant European Technology Platforms as well as the ISTAG (IST Advisory
Group). ISTAG consists of senior level experts notionally chosen by the Commission but in fact
nominated and approved informally by the countries. They mostly consist of senior executives from the
major national players as well as some senior academics.
The planning activity for initial formulation of the work content is normally broad with input sought from
the participating countries with further input coming from the European Parliament, generally heavily
influenced by political considerations. This is particularly noticeable in the “parliament friendly” naming
of the various activities and the increasing emphasis on applications which are hoped would make it
easier to demonstrate to tax payers the relevance and results of the investments. Finally, the
Workprogram is modified and approved by the ICT Program Committee and also has to take account of
input from all the other Directorate Generals who strongly defend their own turf.
In practice, we see much more political influence in a program’s initial formulation but less in the annual
updates. The major influencers are the large National Champions. The annual updates also take account of
©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 18 of 285
The European Union’s Framework Program 7 (with an emphasis on ICT)
the area of coverage of projects awarded the previous year.
1.4.2 Calls for proposal
The various Workprograms for FP7 are broadly at a similar level as in FP6. However the content of the
ICT Workprogram is now subdivided into Challenges. Within each such Challenge there is a set of
Objectives and each objective contains a set of topics and together with the expected outcomes of the
research. There are generally two major fixed deadline calls for proposals each year, each addressing a
specific subset of the Workprogram. A fixed deadline call is one that closes on a stated date and time.

With the evaluation occurring shortly afterwards. However there are also the Continuous Calls, that
remains open for several years with proposals being batched and evaluated every several months. The
ICT Future and Emerging Technologies Open scheme (FET) falls into this category.
1.4.3 Nature of proposals
Proposals for R & D are always made in consortia (a new exception in FP7 is under the new "ideas" part
of the program). These consortia are notionally "self forming". One member of the consortium is
designated as the and it is their job to put together the proposal and submit it to the Commission as
required. Generally, if the proposal is accepted, the will be expected to become the project and thus be
responsible for overall project management. In FP7 (as was the case in FP6) it will be possible to take on
a partner who would carry out the administrative co-ordination and/or project management functions.
This is different from FP5. However, in ICT it was not generally encouraged. Sub-contracting these
activities would not be permitted. Further details of the proposal can be found later on in 4.6 Proposal
preparation and submittal.
1.4.4 Nature of Consortia
For most R & D proposals there must be a minimum of three partners from three member or associated
states.
The overall funding of a proposed research project can vary from say half a million Euros to a hundred
million Euros. The majority of Small Collaborative Research Projects will have total funding of from one
million to around three or four million Euros. Virtually no projects will get more than 25 MEuro in
funding. People always ask questions such as “how big should a project be” or “how many partners
should we have”? The standard answer is always “as large as is required and can be justified to carry out
the work and commensurate with the expected impact.”
1.4.5 A quick look at the funding rules
All funding is a grant, which is not repayable. Payments are generally annual in advance, corrected
annually by cost statements of actually incurred expenses and 15% of total funding is retained until the
final reports have been accepted. (10 % retained + 5% Guarantee Fund)
As in other aspects of these programs there is no simple rule. However as a general guideline, most
participating organisations will get back most if not all of their additional marginal costs. This is a fact
that is not officially recognised, but is true. See Section 6.
1.4.6 Advance payments

Normally, a prepayment is made at the start of a project via the to each partner based on their budget for
the first period. This is normally followed at the end of each period by interim payments. The must
forward each partner his share without undue delay. Note that it is inappropriate for partners to invoice
the for their payments as they are contractually required to be forwarded directly. There is a danger if you
do issue an invoice that it will be liable to VAT, which is not a recognised allowable expense. The
payment rules between the partners may be varied by the Consortium Agreement. Note that a total of 15%
of the total grant is withheld until acceptance of the final deliverables after completion of the project that
includes 5% for the guarantee fund.
©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 19 of 285
The European Union’s Framework Program 7 (with an emphasis on ICT)
1.4.7 Who can participate?
The program is open for participation by any natural or legal entity in a Member State or an Associated
State. A legal entity can be a company, a university, a research institute, a government department, a not
for profit entity or an individual. There are also opportunities for participation (sometimes with funding)
for organisations outside of the above countries. These opportunities for so called third countries are
broad. They have been highlighted in 1.3 Which Countries fully participate in FP7? above.
1.5 Benefits of participation in a Collaborative R&D project
Intuitively, when most companies first hear about this program they regard it is a source of finance. This
is a basic misconception. Although activities are well funded, the money should not be the only or main
reason to participate. It may however, be a valid reason for a research or academic institution. See
Appendix 3 for a discussion on how best to quantify the relative benefits of participation.
The types of benefit can be classified as follows -
1. Development of advanced technology
2. Access to advanced technology
3. Collaboration with key players
4. Collaboration with key customers
5. Facilitating investment in your company
6. Access to a new market
7. Access to a new geographic area
8. Development of an international standard

9. Marketing and/or technological intelligence
10. Funding for something you were planning to do
11. Training or retraining for own staff
12. Exposure of staff to new areas of technology
13. Increasing number of trained staff
14. Ability to hold staff during commercial downturns
15. Danger of not being in
16. Sabotage!
1.5.1 Development of advanced technology
This is notionally the main aim of R&D projects and it must be written in this way. The goal being to
advance the state of the art in a Pan European manner. However, there are usually further reasons as to
why an organisation participates. These are detailed below.
1.5.2 Access to advanced technology
Organisations generally do not develop and supply complete solutions to customers. They carry out less
and less of the development from scratch. They have their own special niche of expertise but require to
embed this in a full system or purchase or access complementary technology. It is most effective for
companies to concentrate on their special high added value area and either buy in the balance or OEM to
a higher level.
Participation in one of these projects is an ideal opportunity to establish or further relationships with
others in your product chain.
1.5.3 Collaboration with key players
Smaller companies very often find it difficult to enter markets and one way is to establish a working
relationship with key players. Such a relationship is also a helpful in many other ways. For example if it
is a company aim to sell a strategic share to a major player, this is an ideal way.
1.5.4 Collaboration with key customers
By this I mean potential end users. ICT projects by nature should contain at least one end user. The end
©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 20 of 285
The European Union’s Framework Program 7 (with an emphasis on ICT)
user could be a major player or say a network of end users. As they are also funded, this is an easy way to
expose your technology and future products to potential buyers and customise it for a specific market

with external funding.
1.5.5 Facilitating investment in your company
For new companies, especially start-ups, it has been shown that it is easier to have external investment in
the company if it is involved in a collaborative project with a major market player.
1.5.6 Access to a new market
It may be that an organisation is well established in a particular market segment but is unknown in
another to which their products could also be well suited. Joining or forming a consortium with players
from that new market is a possible way to become known and established in that market as well as
providing a good opportunity to fine-tune and adapt to its requirements.
1.5.7 Access to a new geographic area
This is similar to the previous one but allows the use of a project to establish key relationships in a
specific geographic area - which is often an important business consideration.
1.5.8 Development of an international standard
A proportion of projects deals with the eventual creation of new standards. Participants, would normally
address a specific area where such a standard would facilitate future deployment or exploitation in a
broader context from a European perspective. The EU has a tradition in the standards arena of using
European Standards Institutions as a springboard to International Standards to the advantage of EU
industry. A project could research, prototype and trial a particular solution prior to introducing it and
supporting it through standardisation. This provides a significant benefit on its eventual adoption as such
organisations will have a head start on others and may through tying the standard to previous , force
competitors to pay them royalties.
Although standards in themselves are not mandatory, the European Commission has frequently mandated
particular standards for public procurement to the advantage of European industry. This has to be seen in
the light of the US employing similar tactics for many years.
1.5.9 Marketing and/or technological intelligence
This should not be the main reason to participate but in several cases it can turn out to be the most
valuable result. Even the process of researching the area within the program prior to identifying a suitable
subject to propose on may result in valuable information on what the leading players in the market are
doing. This info is available on-line in the synopses of running and previous projects in your area. In
addition to the synopsis, there is also detailed information on the participants and expected results.

Later on in trying to set up or join a consortium when you get involved in direct discussions with
potential partners, there is further opportunity. Of course, if a project is approved it not only gives you
access to inside information on your partners activities but because of project clustering there are plenty
of opportunities for broader information in your market or technology sector.
1.5.10 Funding for something you were planning to do
Finally, there are of course the financial benefits of participation. As mentioned previously, it should not
be the goal of your participation if you are a commercial organisation, but it is an obvious additional
incentive, especially if it allows you to fund work that otherwise you couldn't undertake or to have work
funded that you were going to do anyway.
1.5.11 Training or retraining for own staff
This an important but frequently overlooked benefit of participation. Especially important as staff
marginal costs are in reality fully covered.
©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 21 of 285
The European Union’s Framework Program 7 (with an emphasis on ICT)
1.5.12 Exposure of staff to new areas of technology
Another key aspect. It may be beneficial to ensure that new technological areas that may be important in
your sector are understood by your organisation. Participation in a suitable project can allow
organisations to "cover bases".
1.5.13 Increasing number of trained staff
Especially for small organisations, fully funded external activities like FP allows them to increase their
available pool of staff, providing backup and cover.
1.5.14 Ability to hold staff during commercial downturns
This is a frequently overlooked side benefit that allows organisations to hold onto important skill sets
during down-turns.
1.5.15 Danger of not being in
Some projects, especially the larger ones, may include all the major players and their principal customers.
If you are one of the players and are not in the project there is a danger of being frozen out of a
developing market. This is especially true if pre-normative decisions are being made by the consortium
and yours may not be considered.
1.5.16 Sabotage!

This is included both for completeness sake and because it has been a factor (small however!) in the past.
We are aware of companies joining a project with a specific goal of trying to minimise the commercial
impact of any results on their own (proprietary) commercial activity. This is not to be encouraged, but as
mentioned above, it has occurred very occasionally in the past.
1.6 Reasons not to participate
It may seem peculiar to find this section, however on many occasions the best advice to an organisation is
not to pursue this program further. The principal reasons are below -
1.6.1 Work is not a natural fit into the Workprogram
It may be that the proposed work is not clearly covered by a single Objective in the Workprogram after
double-checking with the Commission. What is worse is that it may overlap between multiple
Workprograms. It is also possible that the nature of the work does not take forward the technological state
of the art in your selected area. In those cases do not try an unnatural fit - this rarely succeeds.
1.6.2 Time-table does not fit
As Technical topics sometimes do not reappear in successive Calls for Proposals, if you just miss the call
that best suits you, you should check if it is worth while to wait for another year or even more for the next
opportunity to participate in that area.
1.6.3 Time to market is unsuitable
There is a necessity for many checks and balances in the commitment of such large sums of public
money. This results in a delay in excess of eight to nine months from close of the call for proposals before
the work can start. In the fast moving world of high technology, such a delay may result in the loss of a
window of opportunity and thus be an unsuitable vehicle. The program is best suited to longer-term work
of a potential breakthrough nature that could open up completely new market opportunities or solve major
existing known problems.
1.6.4 Project is too secret
Although all proposals are submitted and dealt with under strict non-disclosure rules, it may not be strict
enough for some types of proposed work. For example, the evaluators are of necessity experts in that area
and a large percentage will be from companies dealing with this and therefore perhaps competitors.
Although they have to sign strict non-disclosure and non-conflict of interest documents, for something
©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 22 of 285
The European Union’s Framework Program 7 (with an emphasis on ICT)

very sensitive, I would be careful. In addition, in the past the Project Officers and staff at the Commission
frequently have come from major companies or are only on three-year contracts and will return perhaps to
competitors and again. However, in recent years, this is in general no longer the case and most staff are
permanent officials.
©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 23 of 285
The European Union’s Framework Program 7 (with an emphasis on ICT)
2 Brief Overview of Framework Program Seven and CIP
This chapter is a summary of FP7 structure and contents. This chapter is included for the sake of
completeness; the content is taken mainly from the official CEC documentation. For more detailed and
complete information, please refer to the current individual Workprograms and proposer guides. I have
also included a high level description of the CIP program. Although not strictly part of FP7 it does include
aspects that were previously part of FP6 and also integrates several other parallel programs. However the
funding and administrative rules of CIP are not covered in this book in detail. 6.25 Financial
differences under the CIP was recently added to provide some financial information.
Both FP7 and CIP are:
● Seven years not four
● Significantly increased funding compared to FP6
● Overall, FP7 averaging to 7 BEuro per year - Total 50 BEuro
● CIP an additional half a billion per year - Total 3.6 BEuro
● Major changes in participation rules
● Another major discontinuity and uncertainty (!)
2.1 Framework Program 7 highlights
The 7th EU Research Framework Program is organised in four parts corresponding to four major
components of European Research
1. Cooperation (Collaborative research) 32 BEuro
2. Ideas (Frontier research) 7.5 BEuro
3. People (Human potential) 4.5 BEuro
4. Capacities (Research capacity) 4 BEuro
Each of them is a subject of a Specific Program
Plus support for (Joint Research Centre) ~2 BEuro

2.1.1 Cooperation
There are ten high level themes implemented via four types of projects:
● Collaborative projects and networks (~RTD);
● Joint Technology Initiatives (~ Article 169 and 171);
● Co-ordination of national research programs (~ ERA-NET);
● International Co-operation via Specific International Cooperation Actions (SICAs) (~ INCO)
These ten themes are:
1. Health
2. Food, agriculture and biotechnology
3. Information and Communication Technologies
4. Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies, Materials and new Production Technologies
5. Energy
6. Environment and Climate Change
7. Transport
8. Socio-economic sciences and the humanities
9. Space
10. Security Research
Themes 9 and 10 above were originally regarded as two semi-autonomous sub-themes.
The ten themes are defined at a relatively high level. For each of them, a series of research topics have
been identified as priority subjects for EU support. In the case of subjects of industrial nature and
relevance in particular, the topics have been identified relying, among other sources, on the work of
©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 24 of 285
The European Union’s Framework Program 7 (with an emphasis on ICT)
different “European Technology Platforms” set up in various fields. Under each theme, beside these
topics, the possibility will be ensured to address in an open and flexible way two types of opportunities
and needs:
• Emerging needs: through a specific support to spontaneous research proposals aiming at
identifying or further exploring, in a given fields and/or at the intersection of several disciplines,
new scientific and technological opportunities, in particular linked with a potential for significant
breakthroughs;

• Unforeseen policy needs: to respond in a flexible way to new policy needs that arise during the
course of the Framework Programme, for instance related with unforeseen developments or events
requiring a quick reaction like, in the past, the SARS epidemic or emerging concerns in food
safety.
2.1.2 Ideas
This program is to enhance the dynamism, creativity & excellence of European research at the frontier of
knowledge. This will be done by supporting “investigator-driven” research projects carried out across all
fields by individual teams in competition at the European level. Projects are funded on the basis of
proposals presented by the researchers on subjects of their choice and evaluated on the sole criterion of
excellence as judged by international peer review .
● The European Research Council
The key component of the implementing structure is the European Research Council (ERC). The ERC is
an independent body, established by Community legislation, whose role is to oversee the implementation
of the frontier research program.
● Management
For the management of the EU activities in frontier research, the European Research Council relies on a
dedicated Executive Agency. The Agency is responsible for all aspects of implementation and program
execution, as provided for in the annual work program.
● Reporting and evaluation
Both the ERC and the dedicated Executive Agency are accountable for their actions to the Commission
and through it, to Council and Parliament, via an annual reporting process .
2.1.3 People
This is to strengthen, quantitatively and qualitatively, the human potential in research and technology in
Europe, by stimulating people to enter into the researcher’s profession, encouraging European researchers
to stay in Europe, and attracting to Europe researchers from the entire world. This is done by putting into
place a coherent set of “Marie Curie” actions, addressing researchers at all stages of their careers, from
the initial research training to their life long learning and career development.
● Initial training of researchers (ITN)
● Life-long training and career development (IEF; Reintegration Grants – IRG, ERG; COFUND)
● Industry-academia pathways and partnerships (IAPP)

● World Fellowships (IOF, IIF, IRSES)
● Specific actions (NIGHT, EURAXESS)
2.1.4 Capacities
This consists of six different themes as follows:
1. Research Infrastructures
2. Research for the benefit of SMEs
3. Regions of knowledge
©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 25 of 285